Olfactory Impairment and Frailty
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Olfactory impairment (OI) and frailty are prevalent conditions associated with aging, but studies investigating their association with each other have been discordant. Objective: To summarize current evidence surrounding the association between OI and frailty. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from inception to November 28, 2023. Study Selection: This study included observational studies investigating the association between objectively or subjectively assessed OI and objectively evaluated frailty among adults. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent authors extracted data into a structured template. Maximally adjusted estimates were pooled using a random-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 values. Additional prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. This study used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for bias assessment and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for overall evidence quality evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cross-sectional association between OI and frailty, for which the odds of frailty were compared between participants with and without OI. The secondary outcome was the cross-sectional association between frailty and OI, for which the odds of OI were compared between participants with and without frailty. Results: This study included 10 studies with 10 624 patients (52.9% female; mean [SD] age, 62.9 [9.6] years). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of studies ranged from low to moderate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores ranged from low to moderate. OI was associated with a 2.32-fold (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.63-3.31; I2 = 0%) greater odds of frailty compared with individuals with healthy olfactory function. The odds of OI was progressively greater with categorical frailty status, with a 1.55-fold (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.32-1.82; I2 = 0%), 2.28-fold (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.96-2.65; I2 = 0%), and 4.67-fold (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 2.77-7.86; I2 = 0%) increase in odds for individuals with prefrailty, frailty, and the most frailty, respectively, compared with robust individuals. The results demonstrated stability in subgroup analyses (geographical continent of study, objective vs subjective olfactory assessment) and sensitivity tests. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that there is an association between OI and frailty, with an increase in the odds of OI with worsening categorical frailty status among individuals with prefrailty, frailty, and the most frailty. OI may be a potential biomarker for frailty. Future studies could delve into whether OI may be a modifiable risk factor for frailty.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».